Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,221 Year: 3,478/9,624 Month: 349/974 Week: 238/130 Day: 32/43 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 155 of 191 (533536)
10-31-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Cedre
10-31-2009 4:24 AM


Cedre writes:
quote:
my argument is that dead organisms have all the necessary components required for life in tact for a certain period after death before tissue breakdown kicks in.
That clearly isn't true or the organism would still be alive.
For example, animal life requires oxygen. If you remove the oxygen, the organism dies. Therefore, the dead organism does not "have all the necessary components required for life."
And of course introducing oxygen back into the system would not bring the organism back to life. The organism's chemical reactions continued in spite of the lack of oxygen. Those reactions resulted in chemical compounds that cannot be reversed simply by the introduction of oxygen.
Your basic premise is false. Dead organisms are chemically distinct from living organisms. That is precisely why they are dead.
And by the way: Nothing ever died from entropy. The entropy of an organism that just died is the same as the entropy of it one second ago when it was still alive. Do you even know what entropy is? Hint: If your definition includes the words "order," "disorder," or "information," then you haven't got it. I can derive the second law of thermodynamics for you from basic principles, but I want to hear your take on it. Just what do you think entropy is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Cedre, posted 10-31-2009 4:24 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Cedre, posted 11-02-2009 7:15 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 160 of 191 (533547)
10-31-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 7:26 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Could you explain, as per the above, how postulations on alleged abiogenesis is more falsifyable than postulations on the alleged Genesis record relative to the origin of life?
Hmm...because you can run an experiment upon the former but not on the latter?
We can already create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve. Is that "abiogenesis"? Well, that depends upon your definition of "life," but surely you see the point. If we think we have a chemical pathway to what we consider to be "life," all we have to do is run the experiment to see if the chemistry actually results in the products we were hoping to get.
How do you propose we reproduce the Genesis effect?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 7:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 164 of 191 (533559)
11-01-2009 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 9:34 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
though, imo, the complexity of DNA would appear to be a model as falsifyable for ID
Ahem. You're assuming that which you're trying to prove. You are assuming that DNA is "irreducibly complex." If you had been paying attention, you would know that DNA is actually reducible. RNA is, too. You have heard of "thioesters," yes?
You mean you didn't actually do any research on this topic before you decided to pontificate about what is and what isn't known?
At any rate, you are missing the point: If we have an hypothesis for how a certain chemical product can be achieved through the interaction of certain chemical reagents, then it is clearly a falsifiable hypothesis: All we have to do is run the reaction and see if we do get the products from the chemical interaction of the reagents.
As an example, suppose we are trying to determine how water might be created chemically. I have an hypothesis that all we need to do is mix two parts hydrogen gas with one part oxygen gas at STP and then spark the mixture.
This is a clearly falsifiable hypothesis: All I need to do is run the experiment: Take two parts hydrogen with one part oxygen, mix them at STP, and spark the mixture. If I get water, then my hypothesis is supported. If I don't get any water, then my hypothesis is falsified. There might be other hypotheses out there about how water might be generated chemically, but that doesn't affect the falsifiability of my hypothesis.
As another example, relativity. When it was put forward by Einstein, the ability to physically test it was not available even though the method about how to test it was quite clear: We need to get an extremely accurate timepiece to be accelerated in comparison to another timepiece and see how such action affects their timekeeping. At the time it was presented, atomic clocks and supersonic jets didn't exist, but they eventually came along.
Another similar test required a solar eclipse that would then allow us to measure gravitational lensing around the sun. Well, it isn't like we can generate such eclipses at will. We have to wait until they come along.
So even though we didn't have the immediate methods to test relativity, the methods by which we could do so were clear. The various hypotheses regarding chemical origins of life are still in the early stages, working on methods by which they might be tested. That's why they're still called "hypotheses," rather than actual theories: We haven't been able to adequately test them. That doesn't make them unfalsifiable. It makes them hypotheses.
All that said, you're assuming that DNA cannot be created chemically (despite the fact that it is clearly created chemically in your cells every single day...or are you saying that something other than chemistry is taking place inside your cells?) But if we have an hypothesis about how one can develop DNA chemically, all we have to do is run the experiment to see if it works.
And it turns out that it does. DNA can easily be created chemically. In fact, there are plenty of biological supply houses in existence where you tell them what specific DNA sequence you want to have and they will generate it for you and send you a vial filled with the stuff.
Now, answer the question: How might one go about testing the Genesis effect? Are you saying god is willing to be put inside the box to be poked and prodded and forced to reproduce what he did before?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 9:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 165 of 191 (533560)
11-01-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 9:06 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Logically, your year in and year out, millenia in and millenia out water to ice crystals analogy is repetitive, indicatitive of no significant agregate growth progress to a more complex system over the millenia
Irrelevant. Your claim is that it cannot happen at all. And yet, your claim is trivially proven false. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what entropy is. Do I really need to post the primer on how to derive the second law from first principles again?
Question: What is the entropy diagram for photosynthesis? Are you implying that anything in the pathway for photosynthesis is something other than chemistry?
This is the point you are missing: Chemical reactions get chained together. If I take hydrogen and oxygen gas, mix them at STP, and then spark the mixture, I get water. I can then use that water in another reaction: If we then dissolve silver nitrate and salt in the water, the water will act as a catalyst to dissociate the silver and chlorine which allows them to react to produce silver chloride. The products of that reaction can then be used in another reaction (such as reacting the silver chloride with ammonia.)
quote:
whereas alleged abiogenesis would require significant progress over time towards complexity to effect the genesis of life
Why is this a problem? We've already seen it directly happen over the course of the diversification of life on this planet. The atmosphere of the earth used to have very little oxygen in it. But the life that was around at the time produced oxygen as a waste product. This oxygen then went into the atmosphere and increased its presence to well over 20%. All of this oxygen then asserted a selective pressure upon life causing it to chemically evolve to use the available oxygen which reduced the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. There has been a long history of life changing the chemical makeup of the biosphere which then chemically changed life to take advantage of the new chemistry which then changed the chemical makeup of the biosphere, spinning the merry-go-round yet again.
Since we can see the very process you claim is impossible happening right in front of our eyes, both in small scale and large scale, why would you have us lie about it?
quote:
requiring an agregate lower state of entropy on the system than that of water to ice crystals.
Ahem: What makes you think life is a "lower state of entropy" than other chemicals that are used to keep life going?
Do you even know what entropy is? Do I need to post the primer on thermodynamics again?
Question: What is entropy? Hint: If your answer includes the terms "order," "disorder," or "information," then you've got it wrong.
Once again: What is the entropy diagram for photosynthesis?
What? You mean you didn't do any research into the subject before you decided to pontificate about what is and what isn't known?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 9:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 189 of 191 (534644)
11-10-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Cedre
11-03-2009 12:57 AM


Cedre writes:
quote:
It is not irrelevant seeing that car A itself had to be started by a driver
Why? There are cars that can start themselves. Heck, they'll even drive themselves. Same for planes. Autopilots are sophisticated enough that outside of unusual weather conditions and the general mistrust of leaving it to a computer, planes fly themselves and can even take off and land without the need of a pilot.
It's why that jet was able to miss its airport and not crash into the ground. It was flying itself.
The Boeing 777 airplane even designed itself. It was made using evolutionary methods.
The GOLEM project at Cornell had computers figuring out on their own how to walk and then having robots create robots that walked via those non-human-created algorithms.
quote:
so there's no way of escaping the need for a driver or a "life-force"
So far, every example you've come up with actually shows you don't need that "life-force" analog you're insisting must be there.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Cedre, posted 11-03-2009 12:57 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024